Sustainable Action Leadership

Hot Planet ~ Cool Clothes

by Coral Rose

One of the most important issues facing the world today is climate change. Just how does that transcend to the apparel business?

Designers and buyers are now asking “what is the source of our raw materials? Where were the materials harvested, processed, produced?” What went into the process (inputs) and what came out (impacts) this “new thinking” is a total mindset shift at the design level.

IPCC and leading scientists believe that climate pollution must be stopped in the next 10 years or else dangerous climate change may likely be irreversible. What does climate change and carbon footprinting have to do with clothing? 

There are two parts to the equation. Our primary footprint is the direct emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels including domestic energy consumption and transportation. Our secondary footprint is a measure of the indirect CO2 emissions from the whole lifecycle of products we use -- those products' manufacture and eventual breakdown. Products like clothing? Yes.

Carbon reduction labels already appear on well-known brands in the UK such as Walkers Crisps, Boots Botanics shampoo and Innocent Smoothies  as well as  EarthPositive apparel, which is a first for clothing.

It is imperative that here in the US business move quickly from sourcing and creating “organic and sustainable apparel products” to clothing products that are third party certified “carbon neutral.”

Last week Lenzing, an Austrian based, global company held an eco-symposium in Paris. Lenzing presented the results of a study carried out by the University of Utrecht. The study considers 11 different environmental impacts including Greenhouse Gases( GHG) the report compares over half a dozen fibers including cellulose fibers. Fibers researched in the study are cotton-conventional cotton both from the USA and China, Polys; PET, polypropelene and Lenzings Modal® TENCEL® and Viscose®

The results of this study are stunning and document that Lenzings Modal® is the ONLY Carbon Neutral fiber amongst those studied. Lenzings TENCEL® runs a close second.

What we need is strategy of quick change;   

While many if not hundreds of companies and industry wide-organizations, some collaboratively are working to define what is the definition of  ‘Sustainable Textiles’ as well as products, that is exactly what has led this industry into the wild west where anything goes.

A much simpler solution would be to quickly move to products that are certified ‘Carbon Neutral’ and set the definitive criteria.   

CO2 Neutral Apparel Thoughts:

1.) “Shopping to Save the World” may  soon be a thing of the past if consumers realize consumption is actually one of the primary causes of the degradation of our planet. Consumers may shift to service, re-use, repair businesses. Consumers may be looking for a Carbon Neutral label.  What is your strategy of quick change for a world of consumers that consume less?

2.)  Lenzings Modal ® is a CO2 carbon neutral fiber produced in a closed loop system. That is the fiber of the 21^st Century. Find a way to utilize Modal® into your fiber blends. What is your strategy of quick change in utilizing more third party certified organic and sustainable fibers?

3.) The price of oil is high over $100 a barrel, and producing polyester from petrochemicals a vital non-renewable resource can also be very polluting.  The price of food is rising because of crop land being used for bio-fuels. Water shortages are approaching us quickly. Cotton, a thirsty crop, it is also grown on valuable agriculture land, which someday may be needed to feed us. Cotton is currently 40% of all textiles(organic cotton represents less than 1% of that 40%)  What is your strategy of quick change in a world where crops are being used for food and fuel and land for cotton becomes more valuable?

As we continue on this road to a sustainable future it is important to be out in front........at all times.

Every day, we need to look at 'What are the Horizon Issues?' and re-prioritize our day!!!!!!

Additional Information; GreenBiz: CO2 Comes Out of the Closet by Coral Rose 9/07

 

Have You Been Bamboozled by Bamboo?

BAMBOO IS NOT A FIBER.

BAMBOO IS NOT LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AS A FIBER BY THE FTC.

Bamboo is not, in and of itself, recognized as a fiber in the US or EU.  What is referred to as bamboo fiber in the market is actually viscose/rayon.

All viscose or rayon fiber from Bamboo (as a source) that is imported into the US must carry a legal fiber content label declaration of viscose or rayon. All bamboo imported into the EU must use of the legal content declaration viscose; the EU does not permit the use of the word rayon.

According to the FTC, you can label your garments; "Rayon from Bamboo"

As one of the fastest growing plants in the world, bamboo grows to its maximum height in about 3 months and reaches maturity in 3-4 years.  It spreads rapidly across large areas. Because of relatively quick growing time and the ability to be grown without fertilizers or pesticides, the fiber is currently being marketed as an ‘eco-green-sustainable fiber.’ There are also claims that viscose or rayon from bamboo is biodegradable and anti-microbial. There are potential risks associated with using bamboo as a polymer source for rayon since there is currently a lack of transparency in the supply chain. It is not always clear which type of bamboo is used for fiber, where it is grown, how it is cultivated, harvested etc. To date there are no known organic certification of bamboo. 

The process to make viscose or rayon fiber from bamboo is the same process used to produce viscose/ rayon from any other plant source. The cellulose is extracted from the bamboo, and then the cellulose is mixed with chemicals to convert the plant pulp into textile quality fiber. This process can be very polluting unless it is carefully controlled, which can be influenced by the age and condition of the equipment as well as whether there is any by-product recycling or effluent treatment.  

There is only one case of manufacturing a regenerated cellulose fiber-where the chemicals used in the process are completely recycled  with a recovery rate of 99.5%, this is known as a closed loop system. The fiber made using this closed looped process is Lenzings TENCEL ® Lyocell. More accurately described Lyocell is a solvent spun fiber in which the cellulose is directly dissolved keeping the cellulose much closer to that found in nature. TENCEL® Lyocell,  also carries the Oeko Tex 100 certification and FSC certification ( http://www.fsc.org/en/) Currently organic standards are not in place for certifying regenerated fibers using trees as a source e.g. Eucalyptus, or Beechwood.  FSC certification for TENCEL® Lyocell is for the forest and for the pulp, they also have been awarded the European-Eco flower label. (www.Lenzing.com)

 

Navigating Organic~Eco Labels; Smart Solutions for Sustainable Business

by Coral Rose

The terms “eco, green, sustainable and organic” are being used openly and interchangeably in the market with the term ‘certified organic.’ Inappropriate use of environmental labels has caused confusion in the apparel market. To be sold in the US as certified organic cotton, all textile fiber must be certified organic in accordance with the USDA NOP (National Organic Program) program (or) for Europe the EU organic certifications EU 2092/91. Currently that is the legal requirement for certified organic cotton.

This is NOT business as usual, nor is this a trend, this is an entirely new business model, one where you need to know your supply chain clear back to the farm or fiber production facility. Where does your fiber come from? What is the country of origin? Bottom line: There needs to be Supply Chain Transparency back to the farmer and to the seed.

One reason that there is confusion in the apparel market is that the NOP Organic Standards were originally created for food.

So why is cotton included? The USDA considers cotton a food product until it leaves the gin. Upon completion of the ginning process, where the seed and fiber are separated, cotton consists of 60% seed and 40% fiber. Cotton seed enters the food chain. Cottonseed oil is found in many processed snack foods, among them chips, cookies, crackers and salad dressings. Cotton seed is fed to livestock, dairy cattle and poultry as a high protein supplement. The remaining fiber is baled and shipped to textile mills to be spun into yarn for fabric.

The Global Organic Textile Standards (GOTS)is premiering the new GOTS Logo at BioFach in Nurenberg, Germany this week.GOTS has offered the world the first globally accepted standard for certified organic fibers. (As early as Fall 2008, we may see the USDA NOP adopt GOTS as the USDA NOP official standard for fiber. )

The GOTS standard for organic textiles covers the production, processing, manufacturing, packaging, labelling, exportation, importation and distribution of all natural fibres. The final products may include, but are not limited to fibre products, yarns, fabrics and clothes.

“The aim of the standard is to define requirements to ensure organic status of textiles, from harvesting of the raw materials, through environmentally and socially responsible manufacturing up to labelling in order to provide a credible assurance to the end consumer.” The standard provides for a subdivision into two label-grades. “ according to GOTS.

a) "organic" or "organic in conversion" 95% or more of the fibres must be of certified organic (or in conversion) origin. The remaining balance up to 5% may be made of non-organic fibres including defined regenerated and synthetic fibres. Blending (= mixing the same fibre in organic and conventional quality in one product) is not permitted.

b) "made with x % organic materials" or " made with x % organic in conversion materials" 70% - 95% or more of the fibres must be of certified organic (or in conversion) origin. The remaining balance up to 30% may be made of non-organic fibres. Regenerated and synthetic fibres are limited to 10% (resp. 25% in the US). Again blending is not permitted.

There is concern in the organic food and apparel market with standards that seek to certify blends and or low percentages of organic fiber content. If USDA/NOP recognizes GOTS as the US Standard for apparel, these minimal standards could go away as quickly as they appeared.

Your label claims CANNOT be deceptive according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Environmental Marketing Guides.

“It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product, package or service offers a general environmental benefit.” Additionally, claims should be adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception.

FTC is an Independent Agency, appointed by the President. Its goal is to enforce consumer protection and antitrust laws AND the FTC has jurisdiction over environmental claims and Textile Labeling.

FTC’s GREEN GUIDES 

The Green Guides do not set performance standards or grant eco-labels but require that labels and communications:

• Tell the truth
• Have substantiation
• Are based on consumer perceptions and require claims controls so they are not misleading
• Have clear qualifications & disclosures
• Specify whether claims apply to the product, the package, or both
• Do no overstate the product attributes

General Environmental Claims:

• Qualify: identify specific "green" attribute
• Third Party Certifications must be independent from advertiser
• Certification does not insulate advertiser - Avoid broad claims unless it is based on LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) and sustainable product standard addressing multiple environmental impacts      across the supply chain and social equity.

Symbols

• Avoid unqualified symbols, e.g. generic recyclable
• Use disclosures to qualify claims. Recyclable e.g. for this bottle may not exist in your area.

Bottom line; Before you label-Educate yourself!!!!!!

 

Organic Cotton "Wars"

 
A MARKETING row and the switch to organic farming, among cotton companies operating in the north and West Nile, are threatening to reduce output by to a half, reports New Vision Online.

The firms are Dunanvant, Twin Brothers, South Base, Bo-Weevil, Copcot and Olam. The companies operate in Lira, Oyam, Pader, Kitgum, Nebbi and Kasese.

A New Vision investigation in the above districts found out that farmers were forced into organic cotton growing after the buying companies threatened not to buy conventional cotton, promising a premium for organic crop.

However, farm field visits showed that organic cotton plants were stunted, with few cotton balls, thus affecting yields per acre.

In several villages, farmers ferried yellow-turned cotton to local stores for sale instead of the white cotton.

The farmers attributed the change in colour to lack of spraying and poor management of the crop. The prices depend on the number of buyers operating in an area.

In Kitgum, which has a monopoly buyer, organic cotton went for sh650 a kilo, the same as conventional cotton.

In competitive areas, organic cotton went for sh750 and sh1,000 in Pallisa.

Dunavant agents in Kitgum claimed that prices were low because “we had given robust extension services and organic farm inputs freely to the farmers to improve production.”

The agents also claimed they were also giving subsidised tractor services to the community. A number of stores have closed because the ginneries rejected the poor quality organic cotton. This has left farmers stuck with the cotton. Dozens of cotton fields visited were not weeded, while the crops looked stunted.

In various villages, a spray pump is used to serve more than 100 farmers.
Some farmers have therefore not accessed the pump for the entire season, leaving the pests to destroy the crops.

Farmers lack agronomic skills and inputs to manage their crops. They have also never used tractors.

Charles Ongom, a farmer, said: “We have not been given any tractors. We hire oxen for ploughing.

“We got few pesticides but very late when the cotton had already been damaged by the pests.

“Pests are destroying our cotton.
“We planted 10 acres but we harvested only 200 kilogrammes.”

Anthony Nyeko, another farmer, explained: “During the conventional period, I used to get 800 kilogammes from six acres compared to 380 kilogrammes, which I got under organic farming.

“This means I am getting little money from organic because my yields and prices are low.”

Nyeko lamented that there were no demonstration plots for the farmers to learn the basics of organic farming.

“Can you imagine we did not have demonstration farms this season? “We were given only one pump to share amongst 60 farmers,” he said.

“Organic harvests were not good because production reduced to half due to lack of pest-management.” But Dunavant agents insisted they gave out 18 tractors to over 5,000 farmers to plough about 10,000 acres.

They asserted that they had so far bought 872,837 kilos of cotton from 37,000 acres. This means that yield production per acre is 24 kilos.

The agents explained that Kitgum alone had received pesticides worth 19,800 units. This is equivalent to 0.5 units per acre for each farmer. They also claimed that about 300 pumps were given to over 17,500 to farmers. This implies that one pump is shared amongst 60 farmers.

However, Komakech Ogwok, the Kitgum LC V chairman, dismissed Dunavant’s claims. Ogwok disclosed that farmers who wanted to hire Dunavant tractors were denied a chance.

He said the tractors were only hired to a selected group of people who were not cotton growers. Ogwok also complained of sh650 per kilo of organic cotton.

He did not understand why Dunavant bought the same cotton at sh650 per kilo in Kitgum but sh750 in neighbouring Pader. Ogwok said a lot needed to be done to improve output, which would translate into better incomes.

By Ibrahim Kasita

 

GreenBiz; CO2 Comes out of the Closet

Reprinted as published on GreenBiz
By: Coral Rose

This year, humans will generate around 26 billion metric tons of excess carbon dioxide (CO2) -- that's 4.3 tons per person globally. All that extra CO2 precipitates global warming and leads to countless unintended consequences. As the global population explodes, so does the consumer spending base for apparel companies.

How will U.S. apparel companies educate and bring awareness to the millions of consumers about the effects of their individual actions and purchases? We are likely to see, like these snack crisps in the U.K., this trend in carbon footprint labeling spill over to the U.S. clothing sector.

Why? For the simple reason that our need for clothing is responsible for about one ton of CO2 emissions per person.

Over a third of that in the washing and drying of the garment, the rest in growing, the production, manufacturing and transportation of new clothes. That's right: our addiction to consuming -- purchasing more clothing than we probably need -- is also one of the sources of all that excess CO2.

This includes emissions from the processes used to manufacture, transport the apparel throughout the supply chain, to emissions from water heating and appliances used in cleaning, drying and pressing clothes to the end of the products life cycle.

The most significant of these impacts are conventional cotton farming practices; the reliance on petro-chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, as well as the reliance on chemical processes to manufacture and finish the garments. And don't forget to include the distance that most textiles travel to the U.S.: the majority of textile manufacturing is in South East Asia, China and India. Of course, the environmental impact of farming practices vary regionally around the world. The U.S. has, in some cases, has made improvements in utilizing ecologically safe Integrated Pest Management practices.

Our carbon footprints, both individually and as a business, an industry or a country, take all these factors into account. One side of the equation is our primary footprint, or the direct emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels including domestic energy consumption and transportation, but it also includes our secondary footprint, which is a measure of the indirect CO2 emissions from the whole lifecycle of products we use -- those products' manufacture and eventual breakdown.

Smart apparel eco-innovators have realized that addressing this issue is a way to add major value to their products, and a way to gain competitive advantage. Several major retailers are already taking action.

Over the coming months, Marks and Spencer will re-label almost three quarters of its clothing ranges to include the words 'Think Climate -- Wash at 30°C' on the garment care labels. Advice will also be provided through in-store leaflets and décor, advertising and on MarksandSpencer.com. The company has also worked with the World Wildlife Fund to develop a carbon footprint calculator to raise awareness of how individual habits can affect the environment.

Timberland analyzed the CO2 footprint of the of their apparel and footwear, on the journey from Asia to the U.S. In 2006, ocean freight CO2 measured at almost 17,000 tons. Last fall, Timberland included a "nutrition label" with its footwear, detailing the energy used in making the shoes, the portion that is renewable, and the factory's labor record, they also are introducing their new green index-metrics measuring program for products.

The lessons learned, and the forthcoming lessons to be learned, can be summed up in a series of Eco-Smart tips for apparel companies in considering your products carbon footprint.

1.) Know your product's life cycle. The most comprehensive carbon footprint denotes the total amount of CO2 emitted throughout a process or in a product's lifetime -- from sourcing raw materials to production, delivery, consumption and disposal. For example, the carbon footprint of a T-shirt might be defined as emissions used for U.S. distribution. But if the whole process -- from growing cotton in India, to mass production in China and delivery to U.S. retailers to the end of the products life cycle -- is included, the footprint rises significantly.

2.) Choose organic and sustainable fibers. Choosing organic cotton and cotton that has been sustainably grown is one big way of reducing the CO2 impact of your wardrobe. With approximately half of all textiles being made from cotton, this action alone will make a difference. Don't forget to consider organic hemp and organic linen.

3.) Educate your consumers. Label your products, about 90 percent of the energy used for washing clothes is for heating the water, wash your clothes in cold water. Switching your temperature setting from hot to warm can cut a load's energy use in half. Take a look at Marks and Spencer: they got it right.

4.) Utilize more recycled fibers. The environmental impact of recycling worn-out polyester into new polyester fiber, for instance, is significantly lower than making that same fiber anew. CO2 savings can be as high as 71 percent in the case of Patagonia's recycled Capilene base layers. Keep an eye on Patagonia,, they always 'do the right thing' and consequently get it right most the time.

5.) Encourage your customers to recycle. The average U.S. consumer throws out 68 pounds of clothing and textiles per year. Encourage your customers to donate used, unwanted clothing and shoes instead of throwing them away. This averts the CO2 emissions that come from incinerating them or sending them to a landfill.

6.) Keep your eye on the future. Should consumers opt to buy fewer new clothes, and start buying vintage or used clothes, how will this effect your business model?

What does the future look like? Will consumers demand apparel companies label items with clothes miles, as they've begun doing for food miles? What would be the business proposition and the value add of apparel produced here in the U.S.A? I say that apparel produced in the U.S. would have added premium value and that would surely be good for business as well as good for the environment.

Coral Rose is the founder of Eco-Innovations Sustainable Textile Services, and is a widely recognized agent of change with over twenty years experience, including senior management positions in merchandising and product development and sustainable textile product development for major retail corporations.

 

Wool and the Environment

According to the Organic Trade Association (OTA)

Production estimates for 2005 North American wool production show that 19,152 pounds (8,705 kilos of certified organic wool were produced in the United States and Canada.

Specifically, 18,852 pounds (8,551 kilos) of grease wool (shorn, without any cleaning, scouring or further processing) were produced in six U.S. states and 300 pounds (136 kilos) were produced in Ontario, Canada.  New Mexico, with 15,300 pounds (6,940 kilos), was the leading producer of certified organic wool in North America, representing 81 percent of U.S. and 80 percent of North American organic wool production, followed by Montana (2,400 pounds), Maine (520 pounds), Ontario (300 pounds), Vermont (200 pounds), and New Jersey (132 pounds).

Here are some reasons why organic wool production is important to the long-term health of the planet:

• More than 14,000 pounds of insecticides were applied to sheep in the United States in 2000, the most recent year for which data is available (in the 22 states which have the highest sheep      production).  These pesticides are used to control mange, mites, lice, flies, and other pests. Some sheep and lambs receive multiple applications of several different chemicals.
• Pesticides used in sheep production can pose risks to human health and the environment. The top three insecticides used on sheep in 20005-fenvalerate, malathion and permethrin-are all slightly acutely toxic to humans, moderately to highly toxic to fish and amphibians, and suspect endocrine disruptors.Malathion is highly water soluble (can be easily transported from the application site by stormwater or  irrigation water runoff) and the anaerobic half-life for fenvalerate in soil is more than 155 days, potentially enabling it to cause groundwater contamination.
• Pesticides used in sheep dips have consistently been linked with damage to the nervous system in workers that have been exposed to them in the United Kingdom. Even low-dose exposure over the long term has been conclusively linked with reduced nerve fiber function,anxiety, and depression.  Long-term exposure to sheep dip has also been linked to reduced bone formation. In addition, residues of diflubenzuron, an insecticide used in sheep dips, persist in the environment for more than a year.
• Two antibiotics, oxytetracycline and chlortetracycline,are approved for growth promotion in sheep. These antibiotic feed additives are used to promote slightly faster growth and to compensate for      overcrowded and unhealthy conditions in concentrated animal feeding  operations. Mounting evidence suggests that widespread use of agricultural antibiotics is contaminating surface waters and groundwater, including drinking water, in many rural areas as a result of their presence in animals waste. This non-human use of antibiotics is compromising medicine's effectiveness in people as bacteria become resistant to antibiotics over time.

References:
Organic Trade Association. "Organic Wool Fact Sheet." 2005.

Organic Wool Fact Sheet

What is organic wool?
In order for wool to be certified as "organic," it must be produced in accordance with federal standards for organic livestock production.  Federal requirements for organic livestock production include:

• Livestock feed and forage used from the last third of gestation must be certified organic;
• Use of synthetic hormones and genetic engineering is prohibited;
• Use of synthetic pesticides (internal, external, and on pastures) is prohibited, and
• Producers must encourage livestock health through good cultural and management practices.

Organic livestock management is different from non-organic management in at least two major ways: 1) sheep cannot be dipped in parasiticides (insecticides) to control external parasites such as ticks and lice, and 2) organic livestock producers are required to ensure that they do not exceed the natural carrying capacity of the land on which their animals graze.

Third-party certification organizations verify that organic producers use only methods and materials allowed in organic production.  The Organic Trade Association has developed standards that apply to the processing of organic wool.

How much organic wool is available in the United States and Canada today?
In 2005, M+R Strategic Services undertook a survey for the Organic Trade Association concerning organic wool production and markets in the United States and Canada.  Responses to the survey indicated that 19,152 pounds (8,705 kilos) of organic wool were grown in the United States and Canada in 2005.  Specifically, 18,852 pounds (8,551 kilos) of grease wool (shorn, without any cleaning, scouring or further processing) were produced in six U.S. states and 300 pounds (136 kilos) were produced in Ontario.

New Mexico, with 15,300 pounds (6,940 kilos), was the leading producer of certified organic wool in North America, representing 81% of U.S. and 80% of North American organic wool production, followed by Montana (2,400 pounds), Maine (520 pounds), Ontario (300 pounds), Vermont (200 pounds), and New Jersey (132 pounds).

Which breeds of sheep are used in organic wool production?
The lead breeds identified in the survey by number were: Columbia, Navajo-Churro, Rambouillet, Rambouillet/Suffolk Cross.

Others include: Border Leicester, Cheviot, Cormo, Dorset, Karakul, Icelandic, Southdown, Suffolk, Tunis, and unspecified crosses.

How is organic wool used?
Organic wool can be used in any application in which conventional wool is used.  Some of the organic wool products most widely available today: baby clothes, blankets, coats, knitting yarn, socks, sweaters, and throws.  As the market for organic wool products grows, so too are applications expanding for its use. 

Why does organic wool cost more than conventional wool?
The cost of organic wool is more than that of conventional for several reasons:

1) Organic wool producers receive a higher price at the farm gate as their costs of production are higher, primarily associated with higher labor, management, and certification costs;
2) The organic wool industry is very small relative to the overall wool industry and does not have the economies of scale and resulting efficiencies of its conventional counterpart, and
3) Federal organic standards for livestock production prohibit overgrazing.  If the price of wool is low, the difference cannot be made up by simply increasing production per unit of land, as is commonly practiced by many livestock producers.

(c) 2005 The Organic Trade Association